Not really... the English language allows for both literal and figurative writing and it allows an author to mix them up,

Quote:

If you say something so definitional as "they failed," they knew everything" or "they got it all wrong", you shouldn't be surprised if the reader might tend to take it as written rather than as "I don't really mean this but am using it for mere impact" ...

Okay well taking those points in reverse order I don't remember saying "they got it all wrong" so I don't need to defend that form of words. To say "they thought they knew it all" is to say that they had some knowledge but not enough and, yes, "they failed" because they played God but brought children into the world with horrific disabilities.

Quote:

So something is either a 100% success or a 100% failure?

if one in one thousand events in an experiment is unacceptable then the experiment itself is a 100 per cent unacceptable.

Quote:

To me that indicates a rather limited outlook on things ...

Well, you're not suffering from a cleft lip caused by a mad scientist, are you.

Quote:

Your objection here seems to be not with the procedure or to science, but to those who would make use of it contrary to your preference ... yes?

No. I reject the whole idea of IVF as dangerous and unnatural... the fact that it's giving rise to birth defects is why it has to stop without further ado. There needs to be debate about the best alternative destination for the resources.

Quote:

Again, aside from your proposition that since the procedure has statistically minor flaws the entire thing should be abandoned, you haven't provided much of a foundation for this assertion, imo

Call then statistically minor flaws if you like but you're not suffering from Angelman Syndrome are you.

So, in your mind there is — or perhaps shouldn't be — any pain or suffering felt by those those who desperately want but cannot conceive children?

Desperate? A person dying of some painful disease is desperate.

Quote:

Parenting is a right reserved only for the fertile...

Correct - that's self-evident.

Quote:

..or for those who can afford adoption...

No, that's not a right - they have to be vetted to make sure they're suitable.

Quote:

In your mind, anyone seeking to conceive via IVF is automatically self-centered and is stealing from those who seek treatment for other illnesses?

Stealing? I never said that... what I said is that the resources could be put to better use.

Quote:

In your mind funds put to IVF are "diverted," rather than shared or simply allocated without prejudice to any other area of medicine or health care?

No, I'm saying they should be diverted because not all uses of public funds have equal rank. In Britain the National Health Service has finite resources so any money spent on one area of medicine necessarily prejudices another.

Quote:

In your mind, the tiny single-digit per cent of IVF children with health complications are "fallout?" .

Well "fallout" describes the bundle of unacceptable consequences... if you want to personalise them you'd call those affected, I dunno... "victims" I suppose.

Quote:

Let's just toss 'em on the pile with Gays and Holocaust survivors and say they don't really exist.

Gays and Lesbians? Holocaust survivors? What have they got to do with it? You're the one advocating birth defects not me - I'm arguing for their prevention.

Quote:

"In your mind" is a place I am thankful not to be. It's a cold, dispassionate rabbit hole.

Alright you'd spend the last £3,300 of the NHS budget on another IVF experiment with all attendant risks of human suffering and I'd spend it on providing medical care for someone already suffering - patrons can reach they're own conclusions about who's cold and dispassionate.

Nice hyperbole. Since the number is 2.5% of births, then 30% of 2.5 is what? .75% of the births. .75% sounds better than a whopping 30% number

Not to me it doesn't - it sounds the same, but actually the numbers are 2.5 per cent birth defects in the general population and 3.5 per cent in ART cases which was headlined as 30 per cent more but is actually 40 per cent more.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA) say that about 20 per cent of ART procedures result in births so if the article's right that there are more than 10,000 such births in Britain every year there would be 50,000 procedures. Okay shoot, what have we got... of the 10,000 ART births in Britain every year 1 per cent or 1,000 are born with the kind of horrific avoidable disabilities described in the survey.

The annual total cost of the treatments would be about 50,000 @ £3,300 or £165,000,000 so the cost of each disabled child works out at at about £1,650,000 not counting after care costs. Absolutely bizarre - spending public money creating disablement when health funds are supposed to prioritise medical cures and treatments.

of the 10,000 ART births in Britain every year 1 per cent or 1,000 are born with the kind of horrific avoidable disabilities described in the survey.

1 per cent of 10,000 is 100, not 1,000. No-one wishes it on even 1.

Speaking as someone with a disability (probably caused by cosmic particles - some cell failing to divide when I was -6 months old popped me out with some missing muscles), your life is what you and those around you make it. Having life is a pretty good opportunity.

I suspect that of those 100 births involving disabilities, there's a whole range from minor to major, many not requiring loads of expensive care.

You know, these and all the other arguments you've puked up in this thread only confirm that you were born with neither sole nor compassion nor imagination. To what do we attribute so many birth defects in one body? Up 'til now you've been entertaining in an annoying way. Sometimes marginally thought-provoking. After this thread, I find you only pitiable.

Yes. That's a totally personal response. Not whit of fact or statistical content in it. But why waste time presenting realities that you will only refute since they are never consistent with what you "know" to be the only "truth" in your poorly ventilated mind.

I thought you were a clear communicator? I 've got no idea from that ridiculous response what part of my post you're taking issue with; whether you're disputing a 100 birth defect cases every year, whether you agree that number but find it acceptable... or generally wtf you're going on about other than apparently trying to prevail in a discussion with non-specific smear generalisations?

Quote:

You know, these and all the other arguments you've puked up in this thread only confirm that you were born with neither sole nor compassion nor imagination.

Oh yeah, I want to stop 100 birth defects every year in Britain and I lack compassion - you on the other hand piously shake your head at the fallout offering no comfort to the afflicted whatsoever, knowing that the resources could be applied to end intolerable suffering of children already in need, and all of a sudden you're Mr. Imagination. No one's going to buy that.

So far all there's been is statistical research suggesting that among children conceived through IVF there's a slightly higher instance of birth defects than otherwise.

There's no clear indication as to why this is, whether the cause is the IVF, or whether, for example, it's connected with the parents' inability to conceive in the more usual manner, or a host of other possible contributive causes - what are the lifestyles of the parents, what is the pollution level where they live, diet, weather patterns (don't laugh at that one - people who are born nearer the poles and were carried through winter are statistically more likely to be schizophrenic - it's a sunshine thing) etc. etc. Has this trend increased, decreased, stayed the same, since IVF was first introduced?

Statistics have a tendency to hang over the edge of facts like a muffin-top, implying that they are telling us a lot more than they are really capable of doing. It should be a cause for concern if IVF pregnancies have a slightly higher tendency to result in birth defects, but there's loads more work to be done before any fingers get pointed.

Meanwhile, 9,900 children born without disabilities, who would not otherwise be born. 100 born with a greater or lesser range of disabilities, who would not otherwise be born - and any of whom (statistically speaking) might have been born with disabilities anyway. If the goal of the experiment is 100% success, then it has yet to reach that goal (as has 'natural' conception), but it is obviously not a 100% failure in the meantime.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.